Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th December, 2025
IN
ANIL VARMA AND ORS .....Decree Holders
Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Amol Sharma & Mr. Ateev Mathur, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Shikher Upadhyay & Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Advocates.
Procedure, 1908, (‘CPC’) seeking urgent reliefs)
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/ judgment debtor, inter-alia seeking a stay of the public auction of the suit property scheduled to be held on 11th January, 2026.
2. The applicant also seeks setting aside of the auction sale notice dated 15th December, 2025, prepared by the Court Auctioneer to be published in the weekend editions of newspapers.
3. At the outset, it was put to the counsel for the applicant as to what is objectionable in the sale notice dated 15th December, 2025.
4. Mr. Varun Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ judgment debtor has drawn attention of the Court to paragraph no. 3 of the auction sale notice prepared by the Court-appointed Auctioneer.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that paragraph no. 3 of the said notice gives wrongful information about the title of the property since there is no registered title document. This would cause prejudice to the applicant.
6. For the ease of convenience, the relevant extracts of the auction sale notice is set out below: “Pursuant to a decree passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 17.02.2016 in family partition suits CS(OS) 2554/2010 and CS(OS) 116/2011, property first floor bearing No. 3/24, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021 along with one servant room on the terrace of second floor and one car parking on the driveway (hereinafter to be referred as “Property”) is being put for auction. Terms and conditions of the auction sale ***
3. The Property is a leasehold and title documents comprising Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc. with complete chain with owners will be delivered to the buyer along with copy of Court Decree, soon after deposit of sale consideration by the successful buyer and with execution of relevant documents in his/her/ their favour by the coowners.” [Emphasis supplied]
7. The notice makes it abundantly clear that the auction sale is being conducted pursuant to a decree dated 17th February, 2016 passed in the partition suits bearing nos. CS(OS) 2554/2010 and CS(OS) 116/2011 on an ‘as is where is basis’.
8. A consent decree was passed on 17th February, 2016 in terms of which the respective shares of the parties were determined.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid extracts from the auction sale notice makes it clear that nothing wrongful or misleading has been mentioned therein. Paragraph no. 3 of the auction sale notice clearly states that the title documents comprise Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney along with the Court decree. There is no reference to any registered title documents in the auction notice.
10. Counsel for the applicant also submits that the auction notice prepared by the Court Auctioneer has not been approved by the Court. In this regard, he relies on Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’).
11. With the consent of the parties, a retired District Judge was appointed by this Court as Court Auctioneer on 8th July, 2025. The aforesaid objection taken by the applicant herein was considered by the Court Auctioneer in his detailed order passed on 15th December, 2025. The relevant extracts from the said order are set out below:
Debtor is to be sold to satisfy the creditors i.e. the Decree Holders, which is not a situation in the present auction sale.” [Emphasis supplied]
12. I do not find any infirmity with the aforesaid observations of the Court Auctioneer.
13. I have perused the terms of the auction sale prepared by the Court Auctioneer and find the same to be in order.
14. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relies upon paragraph no. 2 of the order passed on 7th August, 2024 to state that decree holders are yet to pay their share of the court fees.
15. The same order also records that the applicant/ judgment debtor is required to pay her share of court fees within three (3) weeks.
16. Admittedly, both sides are yet to pay their respective shares of the court fees/ stamp duty.
17. The Court Auctioneer has also noted in his order dated 8th December, 2025 that the decree holders undertake to pay the requisite court fees/ stamp duty before finalization of the auction sale. The relevant observations made by the Court Auctioneer in the said order are set out below:
18. Hence, all the objections raised on behalf of the applicant in the present application are completely unsustainable.
19. Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants/ decree holders has drawn attention to the various orders passed in the present execution proceedings and in the appeals filed by the applicant from 20th January, 2025 till 5th December, 2025, which demonstrate that the applicant has throughout been stalling the process of sale of the property.
20. Earlier, it was the stand of the applicant that she is willing to purchase the 4/9th shares of the non-applicants for Rs. 6 Crores. However, subsequently, she resiled from this offer.
21. In the order passed by the Predecessor Bench on 8th July, 2025, no objection of the applicant has been noted for the appointment of a Court Auctioneer for the sale of the subject property.
22. With the consent of the parties, the minimum price of the properties was fixed at Rs. 13.05 Crores.
23. Subsequently, an application was filed on behalf of the applicant seeking modification of the order passed on 8th July, 2025, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 25th August, 2025. The relevant observations from the order dated 25th August, 2025 are set out below:
levied against the counsel appearing for Judgment Debtor on 08.07.2025, for having acted allegedly without consent. This Court in fact gets a distinct impression that the Judgment Debtor’s herein, who bears the badge of being a 70-year-old lady, is deliberately protracting the proceedings to the detriment of her siblings/Decree Holders and is abusing the process.”
24. The aforesaid order dated 25th August, 2025 was challenged by way of an appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 23rd September, 2025. Paragraph no. 26 of the said judgment is set out below:
25. The order of the Division Bench was challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP, which was dismissed on 14th October, 2025.
26. A review was filed on behalf of the applicant of the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 23rd September, 2025.
26.1. It was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 5th December, 2025.
27. There was a great resistance offered by the applicant in submitting keys of the subject property to the Court Auctioneer for the purposes of affecting sale of the property. In this regard, reference may be made to the order passed by this Bench on 14th October, 2025. Paragraph no. 10 of the said order is set out below:
from today. The Court Auctioneer shall proceed with the auction in terms of order dated 8th July, 2025. ”
28. After the order dated 14th October, 2025 was passed, the applicant/ judgment debtor filed another application seeking modification of the said order, in which directions were issued on 29th October, 2025 to the applicant to handover the keys to the Court Auctioneer.
29. The aforesaid narration of facts amply demonstrates that the applicant has been throughout stalling the process of the court auction and attempting to derail the same.
30. The present application is nothing but an abuse of process of court.
31. Consequently, the present application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. AMIT BANSAL, J DECEMBER 18, 2025